Notes on the Supreme Court's order of February 2, 2017, ref. II CC 306/16, and the Supreme Court's judgment of November 9, 2017, ref. II CC 215/17

Abstract

Two paramedics and a dispatcher have been charged with endangering the imminent risk of loss of life or grievous bodily harm the health of a stroke patient who, on the instructions of the dispatcher they transported her to a hospital without conditions or technical facilities for treating strokes conditions and technical facilities for treating strokes, and on the spot refused to transport her to another facility suitable for the clinical condition. The patient survived,  but at the cost of great damage to her health, and as an auxiliary defendant the was the husband, who from the outset insisted that his wife be transported elsewhere elsewhere, but for reasons of his own convenience. An altercation with him delayed assistance. In essence, the case concerns the interpretation of the standards governing the transportation of  persons in a state of medical emergency by the emergency medical services system medical emergency system, and whether a patient in that system has anything at all to say over the facility to which he or she would be taken.